Help talk:Merging/Archive 2

Merge with previous version

I've thrown together a template for proposed merger with previous version of the same page (Template:Mergeprevious). Ignoring for the moment my pitiful graphic design skills, do others think this might be a useful addition to the family of merge templates? The idea came out of discussions at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review and this or something like it will be necessary there—many featured articles seem to have deteriorated quite substantially since becoming featured, and for them merging with the orginaly featured version seems a good step forward. --jwanders^Talk 12:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Should HUMAN IMPRINTING merge with imprintiing or thumbsucking or psychology?Elsiemobbs 04:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy suggestion

Recently, there was a problem with an editor who appeared to be on a mission to destroy articles though merging and deletion. Not every editor checks articles that they are interested in frequently. At that time I would only check those articles once a month or so. I would like to suggest that a policy be adopted that a merge template must be up for 2 months or so before the merge is done. I would like to see something similar with perhaps 4-6 months notice on article deletion. Is this the best place to discuss this?—Who123 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Template for "It has been proposed that this article be moved to ..."

I think there is the need for such a template, similar to the "proposed merge" template. Mainly to make readers aware etc. (same as with a merge proposition i guess), and to allow further discussion on the talk page to reach a consensus. -- Lee Carré 22:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging templates?

How does one propose a merge of two templates? Template:Infobox UK schools vs. Template:Infobox UKschool, for example. I have no knowledge of schools in the UK, so I don't even know which one is more useful for the purpose. --Geniac 18:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Please comment on my proposed new template for merges at Template talk:Merge#Single-template Proposal. Thank you. Timrem 21:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A contradiction?

I'm currently proposing a merger of List of Harvard University people and Notable non-graduate alumni of Harvard. Five days have elapsed with no one objecting (or even commenting for that matter), and according to one sentence in WP:MERGE, I may perform the merger ("After sufficient time has elapsed to generate consensus or silence (at least 5 days), you may perform the merger or request that someone else do so."). However, further down I see this:

"After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page and check back in a couple of weeks for a response. You may be able to invoke a response by contacting some of the major or most-recent contributors via their respective talk-pages. If there is clear agreement after two weeks that the articles should be merged (or no response after four weeks), proceed with the merger."

Which one is it? Five days, or four weeks? (Four weeks seems pretty long to me.) Many thanks. Gzkn 01:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I also recently noticed this. I believe the shorter time frame is more appropriate. Khatru2 23:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, the 5-day time limit is older, added on 21 May 2006.[1] The paragraph about giving 2-4 weeks was added on 25 August 2006,[2] after what appears to be an advisory discussion on WP:HD. [3] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on that HD discussion, I am unsure where the four week time limit came from, other than from the user who added it. Every other time period for debate discussions here on Wikipedia range from 5 days (on WP:RM) to 14 days (on WP:PUI). So based on that HD discussion, this discussion, and similar ones on this talk page, it is probably more appropriate to change it to one or two weeks. It would be similar to what some admins do on AFD debates (myself included in the past): If there are no responses on a discussion for 7 days, it would be relisted again for another week. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

A quick 'thanks' to everyone involved in writing this page. The "How to merge pages" guide was very easy to follow! --Culix 07:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk Template

There used to be a reference to a template for use on talk pages for proposed mergers. It had a heading and instructions for voting and the like. It's not on this page anymore under the "how to propose a merge" instructions. I've seen some very sloppy merge proposals lately. Does anyone know where it went? 24.85.238.116 23:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wording of instructions for source/destination tags for merge-into

Is this part of the instructions the right way round?

If you know which page should be removed, use {{mergefrom|SOURCE PAGE}} on that page, and {{mergeto|DESTINATION PAGE}} on the page that will remain and will receive the contents of the source page.

To me, it seems the wrong way round. The source page is the article to be removed, and some fraction of its text will end up in the destination page. Therefore, shouldn't the tag on the source page contain the name of the destination page, and vice versa?

If so, the instruction should read:

If you know which page should be removed, use {{mergeto|DESTINATION PAGE}} on that page, and {{mergefrom|SOURCE PAGE}} on the page that will remain and will receive the contents of the source page.

I didn't want to go ahead and change it in case I've got the logic wrong. But what do you think? Macboff 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's right how it is (I've concluded this several times over the course of a couple of years). I agree it's very confusing, though. Not sure how to clarify. Lyrl ^Talk _C 16:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I just ran into this, and furthermore didn't see this discussion (see the bottom of the talk page). Suggestion: Change the wording from

use {{mergeto|DESTINATION PAGE}} on that page, and {{mergefrom|SOURCE PAGE}} on the page that will remain

to

use {{mergeto|NAME_OF_DESTINATION_PAGE}} on that page (the source page), and {{mergefrom|NAME_OF_SOURCE_PAGE}} on the page that will remain

as it is, the variables look like constants that say "this is the source page" and "this is the destination page". Jeh 20:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I just proposed a merge (with tags from this page) and had a bot come and "fix" them (add dates for maintenance purposes). It is possible to add instructions for the dates on this page? So I don't feel like a complete newbie that a bot has to come and clean up after? Lyrl ^Talk _C 16:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Article does not say whether/how to merge talk pages

The how-to guide is quite helpful, but it does not include guidance on how to handle talk pages when merging articles. Should the talk page (from the source article) be left as where it is, to be associated with the newly created redirect? Should significant discussion be moved (or copied?) to the target article's talk page. Even if no action is required, it would be useful to say that. Chimpex 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirects are necessary

On AfD, I see the !vote "merge and delete" a lot. We can't merge and delete articles; we have to merge and redirect articles if we are merging information. The authors of previous versions must be kept intact, as per the GFDL. We need to make that clear. — Deckiller 14:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we already mention that on the page. I think the next step is to inform those who do not understand the concept. — Deckiller 03:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"source" vs. "destination"

In the sentence

If you know which page should be removed, use ((mergeto|DESTINATION PAGE)) on that page, and ((mergefrom|SOURCE PAGE)) on the page that will remain and will receive the contents of the source page.

Isn't something backwards? Jeh 19:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Er... Uh, no. I get it. nm, I haven't had my coffee yet. Jeh 19:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Splitting this page

I propose splitting "Merging and moving" into Wikipedia:Merging pages & Wikipedia:Renaming a page. In fact, we already have Help:Moving a page. --Uncle Ed 21:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging unreferenced pages

I propose that we change the main page to mention that a merge proposal should only be made if an article has referenced sources. I have found while clearing the backlog of merge proposals that often we are caught in circular arguments with editors about which term is correct and everyone is citing their own personal knowledge as the support for their term. Alan.ca 19:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

OK... most editors voted MERGE... now what?

I don't see clear instructions on what to do after a merger vote. When is the vote over? Is there a tag to put at the top of the page announcing that the consensus is to MERGE and that action should be taken? I noticed this "ok-now what?" problem at the article Those We Don't Speak Of/The Village (film) (at least 5 unique votes to merge or delete and one opposition by the article's creator), and to a lesser extent at Skygazing/Amateur astronomy. Part of the problem seems to be the wrong tag being used... these are more specifically cases for deletion because they are not encyclopedic, "Those We Don't Speak Of" has notability problems since its about something that never existed in an unpopular movie, and "Skygazing" is basically a "how-to". At the end of this vote should I be bold and take the further decision to mark them for speedy deletion because there is nothing to merge? Halfblue 14:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If nobody answers here, you should ask again on WP:HD. --Teratornis 14:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What's missing is the "close" of the merge discussion. Officially closing a discussion usually is accomplished by putting a "top" archival template at the top of the discussion and a "bottom" archival template at the bottom of the discussion. I checked Category:Archival_templates and did not see any such templates for merge discussions. You might want to create these templates. -- Jreferee 15:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Consolidation of Articles? HELP REQUEST!

I've noticed a lot of combining(unifying) of information into one Page of a Subject... for example P-frame. For me, and I believe for any other user, it is easier to find the wanted information if not such a huge page has to be "scanned"... It also is more Suitable for finding considered the bad search facilities provided by Wikipedia... and it encourages people to write their few knowledge on a very thin part of a Subject(ppl. tend to be overwhelmed by a large Text) also keep in mind there are disabled persons out there who may have dyslexia ... huge articles makes it almost impossible for them to comprehend.

btw. I'm not an ELCH so please don't Troll on that ... only consider this thought on your next "unification raid" 84.183.253.152 10:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory instructions on proposing a merger?

The following sections have instructions which appear to contradict each other:

• WP:MM#How to merge pages:
  • If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, you should propose it on the affected pages. After sufficient time has elapsed to generate consensus or silence (at least 5 days), you may perform the merger or request that someone else do so.
• WP:MM#Proposing a merger:
  • After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page and check back in a couple of weeks for a response. You may be able to invoke a response by contacting some of the major or most-recent contributors via their respective talk-pages. If there is clear agreement after two weeks that the articles should be merged (or no response after four weeks), proceed with the merger.

Someone who understands the "real" merger procedure should edit one or both of those sections so the instructions correspond. --Teratornis 14:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

See the related discussion above. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I revised it to read "If there is clear agreement with the proposal by consensus (at least 5 days) or silence (at least 10 days), proceed with the merger." AfD is 5 days and DRV is 7 days and my revision is more in line with these time periods. -- Jreferee 16:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• It appears the (consensus/silence) date guidelines have been removed. Help! I'm helpless without guidelines! (Not really, but I still think something should be provided). -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 22:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Earlier on 30 May User:Radiant! removed the date guidelines as "instruction creep" [4] and made a lot of other changes [5]. There was no prior discussion here and some of the changes look controversial to me. PrimeHunter 01:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I added a some of the creep that was paired down by User:Radiant!, who kept the essense of what I and others were trying to say. There is not a whole lot of participation on this talk page, so there's nothing wrong with experienced users editing guidelines without prior discussion. It's possible that User:Radiant! felt "5 days" was too specific to cover all merger situations (e.g., instruction creep), but would agree that a merger proposal should not last 10 months. Your best bet is to post a note on User:Radiant!'s talk page, present a list of changes that you thought should not have happened or could have been done differently, and suggest a way to keep the information in the guideline without it being instruction creep. -- Jreferee 15:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Still no guidance on timelines for merging? I would think somewhere between 1 week and 1 month would be reasonable.  Tabanger  22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiple merge from

I think it should be {{multiplemergefrom|Page one|Page two|Page three|etc...}} instead of the current format. The current one seems quite bulky and, to me, looks like quick and dirty code. {Slash-|-Talk} 01:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Full-content paste merger short cut

Instead of cutting and pasting the content of one page to another it's possible to duplicate the content of another page using {{subst::SOURCE PAGE}} where the editor replaces SOURCE PAGE with the name of the article being merged into the current one. The editor will still have to replace the content of that page with a redirect (or whatever else is appropriate). Sure, it's more technical but it leaves less room for error. Could this be worth a mention on the project page? Jimp 03:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Guideline vs. How-to page

While this article already met the definition of guidelines established in WP:POLICY, I have added the guideline tag and category to WP:MERGE here to deal with some obstinate rules-lawyering. I believe that this just puts the right tag on something everyone is treating this way anyways, but feedback here is welcome. Georgewilliamherbert 17:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. This page describes merges and how to perform them. It does not recommend an action to be taken in a situation. Under your bizarre logic, everything in Category:Wikipedia how-to would be a guideline. That you would do this to win your argument with me is frighteningly sad. ' 19:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophe is correct; this is a how-to page. I'll fix that up. >Radiant< 10:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This was a significant refocusing of the page. However, I agree that predominately this is a how-to page (rather than a guideline page). Although the page includes some clarification of actions to be taken in a situation (e.g., includes some guideline material), there probably is not enought Merging guideline information to create a separate Merging guideline page. If someone thinks there is, then they should create such a guideline proposal. -- Jreferee 16:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge discussion request

• Subtlety (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Entremet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Are there some merge discussion veterans here who could help out on two articles which don't get much attention? The situation is this:

One editor with ownership issues apparently wrote most of the content in both articles.

Three others oppose the near-blanking of one of the two articles and favour open discussion, inviting participation from more NPOV editors, of whether or not content should be merged.

The "ownership" editor, who has complained that no reasons were given though the other users' reasons are clear in their posts, reduced Subtlety to a stub five times (1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th - the last also removed the {{mergeto}} tag) and removed the {{mergefrom}} tag from Entremet twice (1st 2nd).

The situation is in a stall and could use some help. — Athaenara ✉ 09:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could check out Mediation, if both parties may be willing for a 3rd party to weigh in, it might be a good candidate for mediation. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 14:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As specified, there were four (not two) editors involved prior to this request. Participation by additional editors who are both neutral and experienced may be preferable to process-heavy procedures like Mediation and Requests for comment/User conduct. — Athaenara ✉ 16:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear its purely a merge issue, as it looks like there's a content dispute as well. This content dispute may well just be a masquerade on a merge opposition, but it should probably be resolved first. It looks as though a third opinion has already been brought in for the merge, and it has also been posted at WP:RFC/HIST. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 18:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

3O was offered with followup last week after a request. The editor with ownership issues (who posted the Rfc which has had no results) rejected it. — Athaenara ✉ 03:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge help

I saw your request for merge help here. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers is available to solicit outside feedback regarding mergers (particularly those of a controversial nature). If you haven't already posted there, it might be a good place to assist you. -- Jreferee 15:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll look into that. — Athaenara ✉ 00:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Followup: I posted there. — Athaenara ✉ 00:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

When is it long enough?

Over at Frank West (Dead Rising) there has been a merger notice since March of this year, though other mergers have been placed for 10 months. I removed the latest merger notice because the merge has failed every time. Currently the merge is opposed 2 to 1. However, User:Parjay, continues to add the merge notice even though it has failed repeatedly for 10 months. I am not familiar with procedure and need advice on how to take care of this. - Throw 17:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dead Rising is an action adventure game exclusively for the Xbox 360. The game focuses on the exploits of Frank West, a fictional character and photojournalist from the video game Dead Rising. The image of Frank West comes from real life actor T.J. Rotolo. The article Dead Rising is well referenced. The only references for the Frank West are to the real life actor T.J. Rotolo. The merger guideline states that "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." The noted proposal is to merge Frank West into Dead Rising. This seems to make sense. The Frank West page is very short, and none of its content is verifiable. Much of the content seems to repeat what already is in Dead Rising. The Frank West article originated on August 15, 2006 and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time since no references have surfaced since that time. Battling over this issue is not the best way to resolve this matter. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers is available to solicit outside feedback regarding mergers (particularly those of a controversial nature). -- Jreferee 15:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Jreferee, I wasn't made aware of this discussion. I called for editor assistance on this previously, if you wish to read for more information: Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Merge_or_deletion.3F Parjay 15:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is continued at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Merge_or_deletion.3F and is considered resolved for Merging and moving pages purposes. -- Jreferee 15:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

On merger warning again

Like some other users above, I see the need for a special user talk page template that would warn authors of a proposed merger. The similar Template:PRODWarning exists for the PROD process. I've been using my own standard message for mergers like this:

Merger proposal (This is for topic/title field)

Hey, the [[]] article that you once edited is proposed to be merged into the [[]]. You are encouraged to express your opinion on the merger. Thanks. -- Futurano 10:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (This is for talk text proper)

Can we convert it in a new template? I'm a newbie so I need more opinions and support about it. For instance, we could include links to WP:MM and automated dates of proposal and scheduled end of discussion, whatever relevant. Brought here as experience of working within the Notability wikiproject. Thanks, -- Futurano 10:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I would use such a template often as a part of the Notability wikiproject. Merging is often a useful approach for articles which aren't individually notable but which fit in to an existing article.Garrie 22:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, the warning message seems to be very useful. Merger proposals often get very little attention, so a note on the user's talk page might help. I would propose to include a link to the actual talk page section in the message text, at least as an option. --B. Wolterding 07:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Unless I am mistaken, there is no formal steps to adoption of a template. (They can however be deleted if people disapprove) Do you think its ready/ if its used with subst: we can keep making improvements without messing up already-placed templates. DGG 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So, what was the outcome of our consensus? Has anybody created the template? -- Futurano 19:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not read this section earlier, but I have recently created a template that may be used on user talk pages, {{mergenote}}. I hope a mention of it can be included in this article. I created a new section on this talk page about it here. --Pixelface (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger template to discuss merge better on Talk only?

I suppose most mergers are too obvious to need any discussion, especially when a merge would superficially seem to confirm the wrong and evil assumption among many editors that hold a merge to be equivalent to a plain redirect. Apparently such a practice would justify the positioning of the merger template on the article header, just to be all of us aware and prepared to the bad merging of occasional merging pirates, that without proper guidance or discussion would inevitably lead to the destruction of information. However, the template being basically intended to boost a discussion, why shouldn't such merging proposals be moved and confined to the Talk page only? I think inserting such templates on top of an article would easily be misunderstood as imperative without-(much)-discussion-needed, even in case some very basic arguments are forwarded on Talk. However, much to often even such kick-off arguments are missing on one or two of the pages involved. I propose this merger template should be invalid without frowarding a proper explanation on all article's Talk pages first, and to avoid the suggestion of authority to a merging proposal all together by not allowing the use of this template on top of the articles, and only allow the template at Talk. Rokus01 20:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't quite follow your arguments... First, I think the template is best place on the article header because it attract attention there. Editors just browsing by might not view the talk page. Second, I agree with you that a discussion section should be created on the talk page when a merger is proposed. But, please, on one talk page only, and not on all of them. The process is complicated enough already; and the templates include a link to the "correct" talk page anyway. Third, I do not feel that the template on the article header suggests "authority". If so, the text of the template should be improved. --B. Wolterding 16:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean, a merger of two articles that need discussion implies some existing controversy that might not be properly addressed by putting a tag on the main article header. A hostile take-over could be involved to push a certain view conveyed on one article only, intending to abuse the context of the other article. Different scopes on same subjects, being either political, linguistic, ethnic, historic or otherwise, may be hard to merge into a balanced single comprehensive article without thorough discussion and agreement. I figured the possible imperative character implied by just putting this tag could also be diminished by tightening the recommended criteria to merge, as exposed in this article, just a littlebit. Rokus01 19:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change

Gidday, I've been having some trouble with different editors slapping merge tags drive-by style on the article Democratic Kampuchea. Generally the suggestion is to merge with Cambodia under Pol Pot (1975-1979). This has happened three times in the last couple of months. The problem is that the DK article was actually spun off from the Cambodia 75-79 history article. This was after some discussion and for the sake of accuracy and to allow for expansion. DK was a political party, a former state, a splinter government and held Cambodia's UN seat until 1991. Whereas the history series article deals with a very specific period of time. These editors bypass the talk pages completely and thus don't see the discussion to create the new article or my increasingly irate rants at drive-by mergists :)

I think part of the problem lies in the this paragraph of the merge policy:

"Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you can't do that without discussion" is not a good argument."

I don't actually agree. I think merging is quite a major change and not a normal edit at all - particularly given the potential for misuse by POV pushers or even creative vandals. I think merging should always be proposed on the article talk pages and then discussed to reach a consensus before merging. If people only skim quickly through the policy - I'm AGF here and assuming they actually read the policy :) - then they may not get to the part about controversial mergers and the need for discussion at all. In fact this important point is so far down the page that editors may not see it at all:

"After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page."

Sorry that was a bit long and waffly, to the meat...

Proposals:

1. That mergers should be proposed first on talk pages as a courtesy to editors working on the article
2. That editors should check the article talk pages for previous merge discussions before tagging

I'd really value your feedback and comments on this. Cheers, Paxse 12:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree the tag should be used in a proper way to avoid abuse. I think it would be helpful to use this tag on the article header ONLY in cases where the merging criteria fully apply, to invite good editors merging information as well, a process quite different from linking another articlename with a redirect to the surviving version (the most common result from a simple merge). Thus, such a tag would be helpful to (re)consider any loss of valuable information.

In ALL OTHER CASES, for instance if the scope of the articles is different (such as involving different scientific disciplines), such a merge should be applied to invite people to come up with discussion and ideas rather than votes: then, the tag belongs to the Talk page. Like this it should be made clear the merge is not an imperative automatism that could be done by applying mere force and without discussion. Rokus01 09:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rokus01 I agree. I'm actually a little surprised to realise that article merges are a help topic rather than a Wikipedia policy or guideline - merging certainly has the potential to be used as a weapon in edit wars, so it makes sense to have some boundaries about what is generally acceptable. Cheers, Paxse 19:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with (2), i.e. editors should check the talk pages before proposing a merger. I disagree with (1): Actually there are quite frequently cases where articles are obvious merge candidates, and have been unattended for a long time. I often found such articles while clearing the notability backlog, for example. Proposing a merger in these cases is just a waste of time: Even with semi-automation, it costs quite a while to edit these 3 pages (source, target, merger talk) and get all the links correct; and then to remove them again after 1-2 weeks when nobody has responded, as usually happens with such unattended articles. My rule of thumb would be: If the source and/or target page is edited frequently (say once a week or so), one should propose the merger; if it is edited less frequently, there are probably no editors that could be annoyed by a merger, so it is justified to be bold and merge. Actually, the changes can be reverted by any editor, so not much harm is done. --B. Wolterding 17:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. There shouldn't be any unnecessary mucking around for uncontroversial merges - there are already too many things to do :) I recently came across these two articles ‎Phnom Aoral and ‎Phnom Aural which are the same mountain - now I started the talk pages when I adding project tags - so should I wait for five days and have a vote before merging? Cheers, Paxse 19:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: merger is indeed a major edit, so proper discussion of merger proposals must be necessary in cases of non-abandoned articles. I guess "non-abandoned" would be those edited at least once a month. Let's make a rule like this. I also agree with (2). What I disagree with is that the mergers should be proposed first on talkpages (1). No, merger suggestion should be done simultaneously with notifying initial or recent author(s). This would help us not to break the WP:OWN rule and to make the process simplier. -- Futurano 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have some problems with the concept "abandoned article" here. Shouldn't the focus of Wikipedia be: valuable information to an international public interested in some free encyclopedic information, not the happy editing Wikipedia community itself. An article could be completely valid, encyclopedic, very interesting to all and still count on just a few updates, possibly for being (almost?) finished, while other articles might suffer from a multitude of busy bees bickering on their POV. I mean, how could anybody aspire to measure quality to the frequency of being updated? Do we have to include vandalism, edit wars, reverts and reverts of reverts? Would it not better to prefer articles that exists in the shadow of all strive and petty conflicts? Especially since merging COULD be abused as an extension to Wikipedia's worst behaviour. Rokus01 13:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps should specify the conditions a bit more: If the target article is already of excellent quality (say it has reached "good article" status), then I would also be reluctant to merge without discussion. But really, if there's an article that's not under frequent editing, so that one would not interfere with other editors, it should be allowed to be WP:BOLD and perform mergers as needed, just like one would be allowed to add sections as needed. Let's not make the process more complicated than necessary. If someone has the article on his watchlist and wants to revert, he can do so. --B. Wolterding 16:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to be over-critical, I have sympathy to your point of view, theoretically. However, even the "good-article" status is subject to arbitrary decisions and interactions very similar to the kind of edits that to my opinion should not be taken too representative: I've seen articles called "good article" by one administrator, that were subsequently peer reviewed as being very bad. I could give you a long list of high quality, informative and well sourced articles that no one ever bothered to give compliments. I've seen a "good article" boosted by a strong community of pretty fascistic sympathizers that took care some valuable criticism never managed to enter the article; I've seen originally good articles that lost all credibility from the moment more people got involved and felt obliged to add their own nationalistic bias, oppose facts and to remove all objectivity. I've merged articles myself that obviously were abandoned, still I am suspicious of mergers for the sake of active supporters of another article - that might consider the merging of information less important than the incorporation of another redirect to their article. Please be careful to value edits and editors higher than the ideal of being encyclopedic and valuable to readers (won't here be some kind of hidden hitcounter instead to measure customer satisfaction?). Rokus01 20:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally, I think that the more strict and severe rules on merger are, the safer is valuable content and the lower is the risk of conflicts. -- Futurano 10:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to the authors of all the excellent comments above - I've been trying to clear an assessment backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cambodia (600 odd articles) and I've been forced to neglect several messages and this interesting discussion. I plan to use these excellent comments and suggestions to put together a new version of the opening paragraphs that we can discuss/change/approve - soon. Please bear with me (and keep it watchlisted). Cheers, Paxse 10:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Page Movemements

Should 'page movements' be discussed first, before actually moving a page. Particularly, if it involves 'diacritics' and/or 'foreign letters' (example - Poland to Polska). Just wondering. GoodDay 17:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on how important and popular the page in question is. Generally, it is a good idea to discuss about moving the page before actually doing it. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive?

This page is getting a bit long. Users with slow internet connections are having to wait a long time to load the entire page. I feel that it is a good time to archive this page? Any comments about this are welcomed. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I only have one comment - Well Done! Cheers, Paxse 15:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

When to do a merge?

On the pages which have a proposal to merge, how would one know whether the proposal was approved when there is only one or two comments on the talk page? I'd like to start to do some, but I'd rather not if it just annoys people.-- Matthew Edwards 03:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If you feel it isn't controversial, just go ahead and merge it. I often merge without getting any input at all, especially in cases where I know I will be unlikely to get any comments for a month or more. In such cases you can basically either wait for more comments, search out wider input, or be bold and merge it yourself. I think the latter two options are better than having merge templates lying around for months, and I think we need to try to streamline the whole process so as to get merges over with quicker and get wider input, hence my section below. Richard001 04:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Instruction clarity

I am picking up several edits a day where someone has misread <{{subst:DATE}} and is putting subst:Sept 2007, subst: 10:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC), subst: 2007-09-12 etc... Is it OK to simply remove this altogether? Or should we try and make it clearer? Rich Farmbrough, 10:53 18 September 2007 (GMT).

Managing merges

I think we need a more efficient system for managing merges. How would I find, for example, a list of biology articles with merge template on them? I think we need the equivalent of a stub sorting project. Working with WikiProjects on the matter would be good, but some areas don't have WikiProjects. Richard001 04:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

GFDL discussion at R-from-merge

There has been a GFDL discussion at Template talk:R from merge resulting in template changes and change-reversions. We who work with that template have referred User:Geni, who has advocated changes, to here so that arguments can be received by people who are better equipped to address concerns. (See permalink for Template talk:R from merge for state of discussion at the time this note was posted.) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What happens to categories after a merge?

I have done a couple of merges without problems. There is also an emerging consensus at AfD that vaguely- or non-notable characters should be merged into one major Charactors of XYZ article. So I've started merging several fictional character article stubs into such Character lists, but I wonder what to to do with the character's categories. For example, I have merged Brother Justin Crowe into Characters of Carnivàle#Brother Justin Crowe (I don't know if it's time to de-merge him soon, but that's beside the point). Now, what about his Category:Fictional Christians, Category:Fictional avatars, Category:Fictional rapists, Category:Fictional telepaths and Category:Fictional religious workers? Obviously, I can't import them to the Characters article. Losing them is also a little drastic, so I left them in the original BJC page that is now a redirect. Is this the right procedure? I'd prefer some input before I merge any other nn character articles. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing the redirect makes sense to me. --DocumentN (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Multiple merges

I need some advice here. If there are several articles that cover the same material, how would you start the process of sorting it out? This tends to happen with semi-obscure technical subjects. For example, the position of George Lakoff is described in embodied psychology, embodied cognitive science, embodiment, embodied philosophy and embodied cognitive science. In all of these articles, there are really only two or maybe three different subjects being covered. How would you tag them? It's difficult to centralize the discussion, or even get the attention of other editors. ---- CharlesGillingham 13:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)